It's not quiting it's just a change in tactics. If you beat your head against a wall trying to break the wall down, but just start bleeding, wouldn't try to change your tactics and maybe try to walk around the wall?
I would argue that with the incredibly low addiction rate (1.3%) and the fact that this rate has stayed constant no matter the policy (from unregulated and legal to prohibited), the other drugs would be more effectively managed in a regulated environment. This isn't to say that all drugs should be available OTC or even at all. For example, I would not give people the ability to purchase heroin as a recreational pharmaceutical. However, I would definitely look at prescription heroin for addicts in order to remove them from the criminal underground, reduce their criminal behavior, and improve their chances of rehabilitation. I would also not allow crack cocaine to be manufactured and sold, but would definitely allow cocaine to be an ingredient in "energy drinks," much like it was primarily consumed before 1914 (in the form of Coca-Cola and Vin Mariani, a wine/cocaine mixture). Some people might cook down the drinks for a more pure form of the drug, but those would be the aforementioned 1.3%. I would also track sales, a move that would not be palatable if we had a law enforcement centered approach to drugs. However, if our focus was a health care and education approach, we could use the sales data to target treatment options at people who exhibit the early signs of addiction. Agreed. In the hypothetical that I proposed, the "dealers" would be people providing drugs to kids (these people could be thrown UNDER the jail and I would be OK with that) and people that remanufacture drugs into prohibited forms (making crack out of cocaine infused drinks, making heroin from opium, etc.). For addicts, treatment is warranted, necessary, and effective, especially if we are able to catch the signs of addiction early, which we could if we were tracking sales. In addition, most addicts show signs of addiction as they are moving up the drug "food chain," so if we are able to identify them before they ever start using the more dangerous drugs, we might actually be able to have an impact on the number of addicts in our society, a result we have not seen with prohibition.
It is the only comparison that makes sense. FWIW, I would not allow companies making recreational pharmaceuticals to advertise their products.
Interesting. I have spent about 25 years dealing with the legal problems of various types of people who have been victimized by the drug war.
I wouldn't say that analogy makes sense. regarding your other note, "recreational pharmaceuticals" don't even need advertising. We all know the saying, "drugs sell themselves"
